Abstract Aim This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the eTEP-RS and IPOM-plus procedures in W1 and W2 midline incisional abdominal wall hernia (IAWH) repairs performed by the same surgeon. Material and Methods Prospectively collected data of laparoscopic abdominal wall repairs performed on 61 patients with eTEP between November 2018 and April 2022 and on 67 patients with IPOM-plus between January 2016 and April 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 74 out of 128 patients, 30 in the eTEP-RS group and 44 in the IPOM-plus group, who underwent W1-W2 midline incisional hernia repair were included in the study. The mean follow-up was 24 months in the eTEP-RS group and 45 months in the IPOM-plus group. Results There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding age, sex, BMI, ASA score, or active smoking. The mean mesh area (MMA) and mesh/defect (M/D) ratio were higher in the eTEP-RS group (p <0.001 and p =0.004). In the eTEP-RS group, the hospital length of stay (LOS) (1.48 days vs. 2.58 days, p <0.001) and pain on the first and 10th postoperative days were significantly lower (p <0.001), while the operative time was significantly longer (p <0.001). There was no significant difference in terms of intraoperative complications (p =0.56), seroma formation (p =0.83), or recurrence (p =0.83). Conclusions The eTEP-RS technique has advantages over the IPOM-plus approach, such as a shorter LOS and less early postoperative pain with W1-W2 midline IAWH repair. However, the eTEP technique has a longer operative time.